Even Trump Is Subservient to the Syndicate

The US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, has entered its seventh month without a decisive outcome or a credible exit strategy. This raises an uncomfortable question: is the war being fought purely for strategic objectives—or are powerful vested interests benefiting from perpetual uncertainty?

I call these interests “The Syndicate”—an informal alignment of the military-industrial complex, oil and gas companies, Wall Street participants and media houses. Their interests may differ, but uncertainty serves them all. Prolonged conflict means more weapons orders, volatile energy prices, speculative opportunities and a continuous supply of headlines.

In this equation, President Donald Trump increasingly appears less like the sole architect of American policy and more like an “Operator”—a political leader who converts confrontation into leverage while powerful economic interests benefit from its consequences.

The circumstances surrounding the war are particularly revealing. Washington launched military action without securing the full backing of its European allies. For months, US military installations across the Gulf faced Iranian retaliation, while Israel received extensive American military and diplomatic protection. Yet the conflict continued, with no clear political settlement in sight.

More alarming is speculation that Washington could eventually consider using nuclear weapons if conventional military options become exhausted. Even without accepting such speculation as fact, its emergence illustrates how dangerously far the escalation has travelled.

America’s political system is formally accountable to voters, but money exercises enormous influence over elections and policymaking. Corporations and wealthy individuals spend billions seeking access and influence, raising an uncomfortable question - does political power ultimately serve voters—or those capable of financing it?

Trump continues to command strong support among America’s wealthiest constituencies. If that political-economic alliance remains intact, attempts to remove him may continue to falter, while his political future could remain far stronger than public sentiment suggests.

Perhaps the real question is not who controls Trump, but who benefits from endless uncertainty?

The answer may explain why, even in the world’s most powerful democracy, US president Trump himself could be subservient to the Syndicate.